Thursday, April 23, 2009

A study found that alcohol actually has the opposite effect and made men see women as less attractive.

Drink also makes no difference to a man's ability to guess a woman's age, the research found.

I can't believe scientists actually wasted time and money to figure out what is so obvious.

Did anyone actually believe that alcohol made people think an ugly person was suddenly attractive?

I thought it was common knowledge that alcohol is primarily known for lowering inhibitions...not affecting vision!

In other words, "beer goggles" is a term used for men that have sex with women who are ugly enough that they would never even consider having sex with them when they were sober.

It's not that the ugly bitch starts to look 'better' the more he drinks...it's that his inhibitions for having sex with ugly women are significantly lowered!

I'm sure most people that just read that would agree that this makes intuitive sense...

...but it was the other things they discovered in this study that I found much more interesting:

The findings showed that alcohol reduced the ability of women to guess the age of the photo models, but not men.

Both the effects of alcohol and prettifying a face with make-up had little effect on men's judgment.

Dr Vincent Egan, from the University of Leicester, said: "This study suggests that alcohol consumption and make-up use do not interfere with how old we perceive someone to be.

This certainly bolsters the argument that for men, the primary marker for physical attractiveness is fertility...aka YOUTH. Even drunk off of our asses, we are not fooled by women who try to hide their age with makeup...it's only that when we are drunk, we would be a lot less inhibited in doing things we wouldn't normally do when we are sober.

"Another interesting finding was that overall participants who drank alcohol actually rated all the women in the photos as less attractive, compared to the participants who hadn't drunk alcohol. This seemingly flies in the face of the commonly held notion of 'beer goggles'."

Only because you dumbass "Scientists" started off with a false hypothesis! The question they were researching "Does beer make men see ugly women as attractive?" What they should have been researching was giving the men some drinks and showing them pictures and asking them "Would you bang her or not?" Of course, such research is not even necessary...we all know the fairly predictable results.

Reporting their results in the British Journal of Psychology, the researchers wrote: "Although alcohol limited the processing of maturity cues in female observers, it had no effect on the age perceptions of males viewing female faces, suggesting male mate preferences are not easily disrupted."

Note what they DON'T say...that female mating preferences are not cued on age as it is for men. On a biological level, men want to have sex with fertile women...that is the primary drive - to procreate. For women, age is not so important a factor, as man's fertility can last for almost the entire male lifetime after puberty.

I'm constantly amused that people even need to research this kind of thing when the answer is really intuitive...provided you actually understand the basis for sexual desire and attraction between the genders. The fact that people even conduct studies like this goes to show you just how bad all these years of feminist cultural influence and gender confusion have proliferated.

Finally, this article closes with the obligatory "men are pigs/women are paragons of virtue" feminazi political correctness:

On a more serious note, they said the influence of alcohol should not be a mitigating factor in the case of a man accused of having sex with someone under-age.

"Our study suggests that even heavy alcohol consumption does not interfere with age-perception tasks in men, so is not of itself an excuse for apparent mistaken age in cases of unlawful sex with a minor," they wrote.

See how even the most innocuous sounding research can be misconstrued into issues that have very serious legal ramifications?

A drunk man that has sex with a minor is not "fooled" into mistaking her age...only that when he's drunk, he no longer gives a damn that society has deemed his sexual attraction to youth a crime.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

HULK Hogan is sounding homicidal over the way his wife Linda dumped him, forced him out of his $18 million mansion, allegedly started spending his money at the rate of $40,000 a month and dating "some shaggy-haired pool boy 30 years her junior," Rolling Stone reports. "I could have turned everything into a crime scene, like OJ, cutting everybody's throat," he told the magazine. "You live half a mile from the 20,000-square-foot home you can't go to anymore, you're driving through downtown Clearwater and see a 19-year-old boy driving your Escalade, and you know that a 19-year-old boy is sleeping in your bed, with your wife . . . I totally understand OJ. I get it."

My wife watches our local news every morning while we get ready for work (mainly for the traffic and weather reports), and the news, both local and national all had headlines about Hulk "Understands O.J." and "threatens to murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend!"

People are all outraged that the Hulkster would DARE To 'threaten' his ex-wife! How Dare he interfere with her love life! His Lawyer was than given a few minutes of airtime to talk about how this is indicative of how Linda Hogan "lived in fear" while she was married to Hulk.

While Hulk should have realized that citing OJ would be a VERY negative reflection on himself and potentially devastate his pending divorce...I think that had he simply said "You live half a mile from the 20,000-square-foot home you can't go to anymore, you're driving through downtown Clearwater and see a 19-year-old boy driving your Escalade, and you know that a 19-year-old boy is sleeping in your bed, with your wife . . .it's outrageous!"

I doubt a word of his truth would have been reported.

This also signals just how feminized our mainstream culture has become. Typical masculine anger expressed with hyperbole is now being reported as if Hulk is a raging maniac, a threat to society and a de facto murderer.

But perhaps the subtext will somehow manage to make it's way into at least a few people's minds: that our divorce system is extremely unjust, and that it empowers women to commit acts that can and will drive men to commit acts of violence they would not otherwise even consider.

This case illustrates everything that is wrong with today's divorce court industry.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

This country is NOT the 'United States of America,' the representative Republic designed by the Founders to limit the power of the government and promote individual freedom and liberty.

What we really are is USA Inc.

By USA Incorporated, I refer to the current system of big business and big government colluding to benefit each other at the expense of We the Sheeple. This system is also known as corporatism...which is nothing more than good old fashioned fascism as implemented by Benito Mussolini.

In 2008, after Ron Paul withdrew his name for consideration as the GOP Presidential candidate, he gave his support and endorsement to the Constitution Party's Candidate, Chuck Baldwin.

Corporatism is the marriage of Big Business with Big Government. Corporatism uses the force and weight of government to create giant monopolies, which strangle competition and freedom. Rules and regulations are enacted that make it impossible for "little" guys to compete. The trade laws of nations are pitted against each other, forcing free nations to sacrifice their own peace and security to accommodate the economies of totalitarian regimes. And, of course, Big Business is the recipient of gargantuan profits in the process.

Ever wonder why Big Food manufacturers are allowed to sell literal poison as "food?" Of course, these poisons are all sold with the stamp of approval of the FDA.

Why every single gas station in the country is now required (aka FORCED by law) to sell gasoline that is made up of at least 10% ethanol? Because Big Ag can reap the massive profits of selling their corn to Big Oil that now HAS to buy corn to produce this new corporatist mandate.

The same thing goes for all of the concerns we MRA have with the current family court system.

Who benefits the MOST from the status quo of no-fault divorce?

The lawyers, social workers, counselors, courts, and child support collection bureaucracies all have a vested interest in keeping the BIG BUSINESS of divorce and child support slavery as it is.

I think too many "men's rights" activists are way too focused on a very small segment of injustice in our society. People need to wake up to the reality that the only reason things are the way they are is because our government has been corrupted by big business, and big business has been empowered in return to make profits at the expense of the health, well-being and health of the average citizen. Without modern American fascism aka corporatism, the injustices of the current feminazi-inspired legal system would not have been made possible.

The divorce regime has gotten big government to make big business out of involvement in the most personal sphere of American lives - the Family.

The next big step will be to step into interfering in our lives will be our food.

And there is no limit to how intimately Big Business and Big Government can collaborate to steal people's liberties. A classic case in point is the burgeoning effort to control and regulate private, homegrown gardens.

In the face of a growing recession, thousands of people across America are planting and growing their own gardens. And this is not lost to Corporatism. Remember, Corporatism's great goal is to create monopolies and crush freedom, leaving the cabal controlling both Big Business and Big Government alone atop the world of prosperity and power. Therefore, it will use every tool at its disposal to protect any and all of Corporatism's favored players. And when it comes to America's food supply, Big Agriculture is that favored player.

Even as Michelle Obama plants a White House garden and encourages Americans everywhere to do the same thing, her husband is creating a brand new tool for the Big Business/Big Government powerbrokers: a new "Food Safety Administration" (FSA).

At the same time, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) has introduced H.R. 875 to "protect the public health." But it is not the public health that Ms. DeLauro wants to protect. It is the health of the demonic duo of Big Business and Big Government. Two other bills with similar machinations are S. 425, introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and H.R. 815, submitted by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

In a nutshell, when these bills become law, every homegrown garden in the country will be regulated, inspected, controlled, and taxed by the federal government. (No, I am not making it up.) In addition, small, independent farms would most certainly be put out of business. In effect, the great Nanny State is posturing itself to completely take over the food business in America.

I've recently started my own "recession" garden. If the Government wants to try and come and regulate my RIGHT to grow my own FOOD on my own property, I think I will have to exercise my 2nd amendment right to bear arms and tell whatever government agent that wants to come to my house and inspect my garden to go to hell.

It is an ingenious system: first, Big Government regulates legitimate business to the point that it can no longer function in a free and open market. Then it paves the way for foreign investors to gain influence or even seize control of those same businesses. Then it forces the mergers of smaller entities into international monstrosities. Then it passes laws making it impossible for the remaining small, independent businesses to compete. Meanwhile, the newly created super-wealthy collaborators in Big Business are more than eager to share their bounty with their fellow miscreants inside Big Government.

The obvious result of all this chicanery is the creation of a superior ruling class and the destruction of a free and independent middle class. If all this sounds familiar, it is because Corporatism used to be known by another name: fascism! And this is exactly what is being created right in front of our very eyes, here in the good old U.S.A.

As I see it, USA Inc. is headed in one of two directions: Revolution or Dissolution.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

I'm not even a registered voter...I no longer find it a worthwhile or meaningful action to participate in the sham facade of American "democracy" by showing up to even bother a protest vote for the LP's candidate.

This country was initially designed to be a Constitutional Representative Republic...who's primary feature was a strict limitation on the size and growth of the Central/Federal Government.

The current status quo of the present day is nowhere even close to the kind of country and society the founders envisioned when they first designed the US of A.

The biggest reason, I believe, is that the core principles of the Founders was a fear and mistrust of a powerful, central government that would use the power of coercion to create a tyranny that would take away individual freedom and liberty of the average citizen.

Lew Rockwell.com contributer, Michael S. Rozeff, writes about how and why a government based on coercion eventually always grows into a leviathan state headed towards self-destruction.

...Washington insiders attempt to alter the course of the government while preserving it. Their goal is to tame the government. It’s not going to happen. It can’t be done.

Why not? Why can government not be reformed? The government we have is coercive by construction. The law of the land is coercive by construction. They involve majority rule in which one group is able legally to impose its wishes on other groups by force. A non-coercive government can be reformed. People only need to stop using its services. It then either shapes up and responds to people’s needs or it loses out to alternative means of governance.

A coercive government invariably imposes losses on some while providing gains to others. (The same person may gain from one vote and lose from another.) To survive, the state has to juggle these losses and gains so as to not to alienate too many people. Power has to ensconce itself. It cannot rely solely on the use and threat of force. That is too costly a means to maintain power. Instead, it seeks to make itself indispensable. It seeks to weave itself into the basic fabric of daily life. It inserts itself into basic needs that involve food, health, money, financing, education, and so on. Thus, the survival of the State goes hand-in-hand with growth in government because the growth allows the State to entangle many more people in many more ways so that undoing the resulting society becomes too costly and scary a possibility to the people caught in the web.

Furthermore, the growth of government is assured by a second circumstance, which is that the use of power attracts people who want to use that power and who compete to use that power.

Any attempt to cut back this growth or tame it poses a threat to the State’s survival and to the power-using inclinations of those in power. Such attempts at reform open up politics to new negotiations, new votes, new priorities, and new coalitions. They threaten to reduce the scope of power exercised by rulers. They alert the citizenry to entirely new possibilities. They unhinge old and established alliances and interests. In all reform movements lie great risks to the established system, interests, and people in power. If they cannot control these reforms, they will want to squelch them. If they control them, you can be sure that no real reforms will be forthcoming.

The governing establishment, left and right, is highly conservative in one major respect, which is the maintenance and extension of the existing power structure and hold of coercive government over the private lives and liberties of Americans. Not wanting to take the risks of reforming government and having much to gain by extending government, the government grows.

The interesting phenomenon emerges, which is that the government grows too much and risks its own destruction, even while those who are close to government, in and out, see that the government’s very survival is threatened. This is because growing government is advantageous to the rulers, both personally and in terms of managing to hold power over society, and because cutting government back opens up many political risks. It is far easier for those out of power, like many on the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, to identify the survival threat and warn against it, than it is for those in power to do anything about it. Those in power want to retain power and get re-elected. Their time horizons are rather short. It hardly pays them to do something for the long-term good, even of the government, especially when that something involves large political risks. To upset one or two constituencies by cutting back their benefits may mean losing office.

Rozeff has distilled the very essence of at least MY own core, libertarian philosophy: the enemy of freedom and liberty is the ever-growing, ever-expanding leviathan known as THE STATE.

There is no fixing the problems of our current status quo, because the government is UNFIXABLE.